Answer is: never. The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago, but instead of settling we want more: traveling, more and more advanced tech, vast amount of entertainment, etc.

Consider the multi-billion dollar media productions (games, TV series, movies, music, books, etc.) that you can access at the command of your voice vs. the same ol' jester, resident poet or occasional travelling theater company that were the only option for a monarch not so many centuries ago.

So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs because we have TVs, Netflixes, Games, gadgets, toys etc.

I would argue that many people nowadays feel more like slaves than monarchs since they can hardly even afford healthcare in many cases, they probably won't have a pension due to current demographics, they have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords, tax lords, pension lords, healthcare lords and other various fee lords.

True, It does feel like Feedalism again, but for many not from position of monarchs but serfs.

> So you are saying that we should feel like monarchs

18th century monarchs, yes. (Not 21st century monarchs.)

> hardly even afford healthcare in many cases

Better than leeches though.

> they probably won't have a pension

The reason that's a problem is precisely because health is good.

> hey have to hand over half of their salary to various land lords

Most adults in the U.S. own their own home (modulo mortgage...but even very wealthy people still choose to take mortgages for yet bigger houses). And expensive housing is generally driven voluntary by urbanization.

If you offered me the choice of life as King George III or the average American, I would choose the latter.

I disagree. Try to actually settle down (without winning the startup/rich parents/literal lottery first) and see how it goes. If you haven't raised a nice safety fund and you get sick, you are screwed. If you dont want to live in the middle of nowhere, land owners are going to want a huge chunk of money for that priviledge. Also good luck finding a part time job that pays much better than minimum wage. I know a lot of people who try to do this and there are definitely ways it can happen, but our society is definitely structured to make it difficult.

Tell the person working two jobs, paying more than half of their income to rent/mortgage and living paycheck to paycheck that they should just relax and settle down ...

100 years ago, you were screwed if you got the wrong infection no matter how rich you were. Now we cure that with a $30 course of antibiotics.

Even just the limited healthcare you can get from free clinics and emergency treatment that hospitals are required to provide even if you aren't able to pay would be better than the best care money could buy 100 years ago.

Of course antibiotics and other things have improved since 100 years ago, nobody is arguing otherwise. The argument is that right now we could have cheap antibiotics and less working hours.

The counter argument was that the average person chooses luxury over less working hours, and my counter-counter argument was that this choice isn't actually available to most people. Also, that actually the choice most people have is to work less and live something like 100 years ago with reduced life span, etc, or work a lot and survive.

If you think you have it better than a monarch because you have things and other people are dissatisfied and you dont know why maybe it isn't more stuff that people want.

The point of being a monarch wasn't to have the shiniest toys.

> The average person in the West has already surpassed the comfort and standard of living of the average monarch a couple centuries ago

This comparison makes very little sense, because with change in society and social structures, human needs and desires also change. To compare today's person with someone from centuries ago ignores that doctrine. The fact is that kings had the best in society centuries ago, but the majority of people don't have the best in society today. Whether "the best" is accessible is a different matter, but kings had an excellent standard of living in their time period.

It is genuinely confusing why someone would think that saying we live better than a king lived centuries ago is some kind of argument that things shouldn't be further improved. Why, exactly, is the king's standard of living relevant today, other than as a historical curiosity?

Perhaps to put our own desires into perspective. Is an unhappy king of 1000 years past or future helpful for understanding our own path towards happiness? If it shows the futility of material reliance, I'd say yes.

You can have that right now if you’re willing to settle for a 1920’s standard of living.

You can have that. Acquire more assets.

yeah, and if you are lucky, you'll only have to work 40 hours a week for 50 years to acquire them.

Which brings up his quality of life stance.

It honestly feels like we're paid slaves waiting until we have enough to buy ourselves from our owners.

I find this perspective problematic. I understand it feels like a lack of freedom—indeed you are constrained from doing whatever you want.

As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe. Slavery implies coercion or violence limiting freedom, which certainly still exists in the world, but isn’t an apt description of what you describe.

>As an example, imagine you are on your own, completely outside of society, out of contact with others. You’d need to build and maintain shelter. You’d need to forage or grow food. You’re not free to do whatever you want, until you have accumulated enough resources to not need to do the work to provide what you need for everyday survival.

This is true, but it's not the only perspective, and it misses out on a lot of normative social theory. J.E. Roemer would argue that because we are part of society, measurements of wellbeing should be taken relative to the wealth generated by society. The question is not if someone would be better off if they withdrew from society with only their own wealth, but if they'd be better off if they withdrew with a per-capita share of society's productive capacity.

>I don’t think we’d call this slavery, yet it has the same shape as what you describe.

Slavery isn't the word for it, but necessity is the word for it. It makes much more sense to talk of the freedom/necessity dichotomy than it does to talk of the freedom/slavery dichotomy.

"The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class."

Certainly. I believe we largely agree.

That's a horrible comparison. If I didn't need to have a job I would be volunteering helping the elderly, doing construction work, helping with animal rehabilitation, inventing things (I'm a mechanical engineer), etc. I can't contribute in any of these ways I would enjoy because they either don't enough or are risky.

I think we may be talking past each other. My intent is to explain why I think phrases like “slaves” and “buy ourselves from our owners” is ill-suited for what you’re trying to convey. Indeed, I’m struggling to find the connection between your comment I first responded to and your response here. I think you’re trying to distinguish between what you have to do to live and what you would choose to do if you didn’t have to worry about making a living. That’s certainly a worthwhile point to make, but again, I don’t think that in and of itself is slavery. (I wasn’t at all implying that what you would choose to do was separate yourself from society, given the opportunity—if that’s how you read the example.)

My example may miss the mark, but it wasn’t intended to. Can you help tie them together for me?

That depends on your expected standard of living and your pay.

In Utah, the median wage is $15.8/he, which puts you around $32k/year (assuming 250 work days @ 8 hours/day), and the median salary with a bachelor's degree is ~$57k[1]. I'll be looking at the lower figure.

Let's make a few assumptions:

- $15/hr is take home, not gross, and we'll ignore all government programs - single, and living with roommates is acceptable - within range of mass transit, so no car needed - goal is to maintain minimal lifestyle w/o work

It looks like $1200 is a reasonable rent for a 2BR apartment, so $600/month should be doable with one roommate, less with two.

So, here are some expenses:

- rent - $600 - transportation - $85 (unlimited pass for light rail & bus, $200 for commuter rail, but I'm looking within range of the light rail) - food - $300/month (very generous $10/day, cooking for one could cut this in half) - utilities - $100/month (shared utilities)

So, $1100/month for basic expenses. $15/hr would get ~$2500/month. If we increase expenses to $1500, that still means ~$1000/month can go toward retirement. If our aim is $1500/month spending, we can estimate the amount we need to stop working using the 4% rule [2], and I'll include a range to go from 3-4% to account for a longer "retirement" (4% is for 30-year retirement, but expenses could be reduced as well).

Amount needed (today's dollars, 4% rule accounts for inflation):

- 3% - $600k - 4% - $450k

Saving $1k/month for 20 years puts you at ~$500k assuming 7% growth (average growth of stock market after taking inflation into account). This number is approximately in the middle of our range, and 22 years is $600k; monthly investment and return can vary, so 20-25 years seems like a reasonable estimate. If you start at 25, you'd be done by 50, which is way better than the average person, and you can make this less by reducing expenses, increasing income, or utilizing public services.

To make this process easy, we could also use this chart [3], which is based on savings rate. $1k/2.5k = 40% savings rate, which is 22 years according to the chart, which is in line with what I put down here.

The actual story is obviously more complex since I hand-waved medical costs, simplified assumptions, etc, but the general story is valuable. Maybe retiring at 45 isn't practical for everyone, but perhaps working significantly fewer hours is practical. If we simplify our lifestyle, we can be much more financially secure much earlier. I'm sure a savvy individual could earn a bit more (side hustles) and spend a bit less (decrease food expenses, bike instead of taking the bus, etc).

I'm sure the figures look a bit different in various areas, but the root of the matter is that the average person should have a much better outlook than we see on average. I think the solution lies in better education (I doubt the average person understands compound interest), better housing availability (reduce costs), better mass transit, etc.

- [1] https://slchamber.com/median-wage-in-utah/ - [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/four-percent-rule.asp - [3] https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...